Peter

1 Re contradictory: what you wrote to Georgina was: "It seems Paul has a different definition of 'subjective' to it's common use in science, which is implicit from his essay, appearing wholly contradictory but obviously not as understood by Paul, so apparent directly conflicting views may not really be so"

2 Re Edwin's view: I do not care who's view you defer to, what I do care about is that any point is properly substantiated, and not an assertion. But you do not substantiate this either.

3 Re subjective: the full sentence is: "So knowledge thereby gained is not inherently subjective, since it represents, for us, both what is, and all there can be". That caveat 'for us' does not make it subjective, as you assert. Because if you re-read paras 3-5, you will see that 'for us' refers to the knowledge of reality, ie what it is possible for us to know. Which is based on a physical process. And is reality, we do not have access to 'something else'. We can of course hypothecate, otherwise we would be very limited. But that is based on, and referenced to, validated direct experience. In simple language, we cannot transcend our own existence, that is what beliefs do, and this is science. So there is a valid and inevitable closed system (it is a function of the sensory systems), within which objectivity is establishable. "If 3 people observe an event from different places or in different states of motion, they will all see something different. That is 'subjective' reality." No it is not, they are perceptions, which could be objective or subjective, within their own contexts. And anyway, as I make perfectly clear, I am not interested in anything after point of reception at sensory system. "The words do not then get that across" because you are interpreting what I write, rather than reading what I actually write.

4 Re presence: I did not like that word myself, that is why it is in parenthesis (in fact it has gone in the update). However, it is clear what I am referring to, and I do not care who else has used it in other contexts. We are supposed to be assessing what I have written. Neither do I care what maths does, and your references to zero, which are nothing to do with what I have written. I write of the concept of 'occupying' a configuration of 'spatial points', ie it is a method for expressing relative size/shape of physically existent phenomena. By definition, the smallest elementary particle will equate with a spatial point, it will 'occupy' a 'spatial point'. [Just for the record there can be no zero or infinity in physical reality, in the sense that zero means nothing, and a physical phenomenon is something, and physical reality has definiteness (it may be immense but not infinite)].

5 Re effects: Again, you have not read what I have written. I use different labels here, which are defined, so that the grammar does not become plain intolerable. The effects, are physically existent phenomena (aka light, vibration, etc), ie they are a reality. They result from an interaction between other physically existent phenomena, one of which is the reality we are trying to identify. It has nothing to do with sunglasses, you are referring to the wrong interaction.

6 Re observation: yet again, this is not what I an referring to. I am not interested in all that which goes on after reception at sensory system, please read para 17.

7 Re "Sorry to go on so long!" Not at all Peter. You are the first one who has made what I feel is a genuine attempt to understand what I am saying, and commented as such, and not just said tried to link what is apparently being said with their own efforts. Frankly, I have found most of the discussion intellectually dispiriting, a form of yes it is/no it isn't. What I will say, is that, obviously, I can only use the language available and that relates to another way of looking at things. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with my use of language, my current amended copy has not changed much at all. So, all I can say is try it a couple of times more (its only paras 3-24), but, and I am not being rude here, just read what is there.

Paul

Peter (and indeed anybody else)

Having just watched Operation Mincemeat, all about decption (The man who never was), I thought i would have a go at 'deciphering'. Here is a stripped down version of the argument.

Simple explanation

1 Leaving aside all metaphysical possibilities, since this is science, what we can know of reality can only be based on what is potentially receivable by the sensory detection systems of all organisms. Hypothesis can overcome known practical problems involved in the sensory processes, ie where it is determined that there is something which is potentially receivable, but it cannot be so. However, that is still subservient to the start point. That is, it is indirectly, rather than directly, validated sensory experience, and is not assertion, which is based on no experienceability.

2 So, within this valid closed system of sensory awareness, in respect of physical reality there are two knowns: 1 It physically exists independently of sensory detection. 2 It involves alteration. This is so because we receive physical input to the sensory systems, and after subsequent processing, difference can be identified when such inputs are compared.

3 This means physical existence is a sequence, and as such that can only occur one at a time, because the successor cannot occur unless the predecessor ceases. In other words, there is a specific physically existent state in existence as at any given point in time (as in timing, a point in time being the unit of timing, which is the fastest rate of change in reality). This is known as the present. Now, this involves a vanishingly small degree of change and duration, but it must be so, otherwise physical existence cannot occur.

4 The key point here being that it reveals the falsity of attributing the concept of time to being a characteristic of a reality (ie a physically existent state). Because that is concerned with the difference between realities, not of a reality. Physically, there is alteration, and the timing system calibrates the rate at which that occurs, by comparing sheer numbers of change which occurred, ie irrespective of type.

5 The physical phenomena received by the sensory systems (commonly known as light, noise, vibration, etc) are the result of a physical interaction between two other physically existent phenomena, one of which is the reality we are trying to discern. In the context of the sensory processes, these received physical effects can be characterised as 'representations' (or 'information') of that reality, as the evolution of sensing means that they have acquired a functional role in that process, ie that of 'gathering' and 'conveying' receivable 'information' about reality. But this has no affect on their physically existent state.

6 Precisely how these physical effects are instigated, travel, etc, needs to be known, in order accurately to infer from them the reality they 'represent' (given that they have first to be inferred from individual perceptions). But at the generic level, this lack of precise understanding is largely irrelevant. As while some of the logic thereby remains unresolved, it is sufficient that: any given physically existent state (a reality) interacts with another such state (a 'medium' in the context of the sensory process, of which there are several types), resulting in a number of identical (or near so) physically existent states (effects in the context of the sensory process), within each type of medium. Each medium corresponding with a type of sensory detection system (eg sight, hearing, etc).

7 In travelling, some of these effects interact with a suitable sensory organ, many do not. That interaction resulting in the cessation of the existent state, in the same way as when it involves something which is not able to functionally utilise it (ie is not associated with a sensory system, like a brick wall). These effects are such that they continue to exist in a physically existent form which is unchanged (or largely so), whilst, in contrast, the reality they represent has since altered.

8 As all the phenomena involved are physically existent, ie have intrinsic physical properties, it has to be assumed until proven otherwise, that these could impinge upon their ability to fulfil this acquired sensory function. So unless proven to the contrary, it must not be assumed that what is received by the sensory systems, which is not the reality anyway, is an entirely accurate, and/or comprehensive, representation of the reality. It is only the result of a physical interaction, which sensory systems have evolved to take advantage of, thereby providing awareness of reality to organisms. Whether any given recipient sensory system could process all that information, if it is, or could be, available, is another issue. The sensory systems evolved to enable survival, not analysis of the constitution of reality.

Paul,

If you prefer to think of it as me not comprehending what you've been saying, then so be it. I prefer to think of it as me comprehending what you've been saying and disagreeing with it. I also prefer to think of it as you not comprehending what I've been saying but disagreeing with your faulty concept of what I've been saying.

Regardless of which of these various ways of looking at it is more accurate, you've finally succeeded in wearing me down. Debating with you, unfortunately, has turned out to be like debating with a brick wall, and you probably feel the same about debating with me. I've really given it my best shot. And, to your credit, I perceive that you've given it your best shot, too. But I give up. I can use my time more productively than debating with a brick wall, and I suspect that the same is true for you as well. I'm sorry we could never achieve a meeting of minds, despite our best efforts.

As David Deutsch has stated, "The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." ('The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 257) We have to hope that the truth is still out there somewhere waiting for us (and others) to converge on it. When we do, we'll no doubt echo Wheeler's words: "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it -- in a decade, a century, or a millennium -- we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?"

Good luck with your program of study and with the essay competition.

jcns

Dear Paul,

I have tried my best to understand your essay, but I have a hard time understanding what you're getting at. Most arguments are presented as facts, not hypotheses, and I fail to find in any of them how the conclusions logically follows from the premises. Maybe it's me, but the essay reads like a cross between metaphysical premises and religious prescriptions.

After reading your essay, I realized that that everything you have introduced come is based on one single idea; that reality emerges from perceptible physical interactions. In other words, reality is observer dependent.

It is important to discuss how reality is experienced and perceived (that it, by the way, the very definition of metaphysics), but affirming that reality must be perceived negates the existence of an objective reality. Reality, as understood as being the sum of all physical objects and processes, existed billions of year before there was any observer (it took billion of years before the conditions necessary for something as complex as observer to emerge).

Closer to home, atoms, particles and the biological processes that is life existed before there were perceived. They exist today for most people regardless of them being aware or not of their existence. Objective reality, which is something you seem to discuss, is observer independent.

That said, I agree you, at least in part, when you say that knowledge of reality must be based on physical processes. Yet, none of your affirmations are based on observed or inferred physical phenomena.

Maybe the affirmations you made are truly based on physical reality (whatever definitions you may use), but I fail to see that in the essay.

One last note, presenting affirmations as truths leaves very little space for critical thinking or discussion. You might want to introduce a few "ifs" , "maybes" or "in my opinion." After all, yours are opinions, aren't they?

I hope you will my comments useful.

Regards,

DLB

    Paul,

    Since I am of the opinion there is only what is physically real and it is dynamically changing, entities do "fade away," as they loose more substance than they gain.

    While I do make some degree of effort to see your view, even though I don't see what creates the necessary change, I don't see that you make significant effort to understand where others might be coming from and don't try to unravel what others are trying to say. Since I only see reality as action in space, it is meaningless to say I'm arguing for a physically extant future. By " feedback," I mean within that current context. For example, if a ship is moving through the water, due to the water being pushed out of the way in front of the ship and filling in behind it, effectively an amount of water equal to the displacement of the ship is moving in the opposite direction. This applies to most action, in that the total environment compensates by moving an equal amount in a non-linear fashion, in the opposite direction, creating an overall equilibrium, even though the effects might be distributed far away from the action in question.

    Paul and JCN Smith,

    This is how I see it. Passage of time is the change in arrangements /configurations of the Object universe -the sequence of iterations. It could be argued that if the sequence oscillated between different arrangements then time was oscillating back and forth, agreeing with J.C.N. It depends upon whether it is thought of as a linear sequence that can only be linear or the patterns are regarded as the times and a same pattern is a repetition of the -same time- not a -new iteration- with the same pattern. It is exceedingly unlikely that the whole Object universe would recreate exactly the same universal pattern.So I do not think an important philosophical question to resolve.

    Even if it was decided that passage of time could be said to reverse and repeat, the perceived arrow of time is not exactly the same as passage of time. There is one way input to the observer's image reality. The observer experiences a sequence of presents, that are patchwork amalgamations from data originating from different iterations, received from the data pool within the environment- Those experienced outputs do not precisely match (in perceived content) the content of the underlying sequence of iterations. So it might be experienced as an odd occurrence within the experienced time that still seems to be progressing one way.

    Hi Paul, J.C.N.Smith,

    Hypothetical scenario for illustration;

    If the material arrangement of the Object universe goes from arrangement A to B to C and then D, E, F then there will be data reflected or emitted from arrangements A, B and C within the environment simultaneously with material arrangements D, E and F. As the potential sensory data persists in the environment after the material forms have changed.

    If the material arrangement then goes from F to E to D and then D to E to F there will be data in the environment reflected or emitted from former material arrangements F, E, D simultaneously with new material arrangements D, E and F, which were not present in the first scenario ie A,B,C,D,E,F.

    So though the material arrangement sequence is repeated, (D,E,F in both cases), the data in the environment and thus what an observer might perceive is not identical.

    JCN

    "The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth."

    Exactly.

    Now that 'brick wall' is: 1. Physical reality is independent of sensory detection. 2. Physical reality involves alteration. Both of which are indisputable facts, unless one starts invoking beliefs. Therefore, the physical reality which we can know of via sensory detection, is a sequence. Sequences occur one at a time, because the predecessor must cease for the successor to occur. Which means that physical reality is that physically existent state which exists as at any given point in time.

    If you can find any bad bricks or poorly mixed mortar, please let me know.

    Paul

    Georgina

    Sorry, did not 'see' you underneath there, only had JCN's post on screen.

    Fundamentally, see above.

    This has nothing to do with time. It concerns the way in which physical reality occurs, when examined generically. Any points about time and timing are a consequence. As they should be, because there are only physically existent phenomena. Not change, space, time, etc, which are all artefacts in our conceptualisation thereof, although time as conceived is nonsense.

    Physics is supposed to be analysing physical existence, within a verified existentially closed system. That is, it is not a religion. My specific point to JCN was that there is no such progression as 'oscillation', in the sense that physical reality is a 'one-way' sequence. The fact that some physically existent states can 're-occur', is highly likely to be superficial. That is, at the physical level, there is really likely to be not much the same. It just looks so from a higher level. But, even if the same set of elementary particle states, etc, etc, re-occurred, this is irrelevant. Because all that has happened is the same existent state has occurred more than once in the sequence. That's it. There is no form of reversal in the sequence, or causal factors operating in the 'other direction', or whatever. Just a repeat performance! There is this underlying human desire (incidentally, I am human!) to attribute 'more' with the concept of future, reaction, etc.

    It all concerns a sequence. When states are compared, difference is identified. Difference involves: 1) substance (ie what it was), 2) order (ie order of occurrence), 3) frequency (ie the rate at which differences occur. That is, the number of changes, irrespective of type, which occurred in any given sequence, compared to any other number that occurred meanwhile. The latter could be in any sequence (including the former), and either occurred concurrently, or otherwise. This is timing.

    For example, with a quartz device, the number of crystal oscillations is being counted whilst some other number of changes occurs. These oscillations being physically converted into a readable form (ie moving hands around), whilst expression of the result in terms of days, etc, is merely indicative of fossilised language, as the first 'clock' was earth movement. What is really happening is that X oscillations occurred whilst the elephant walked Y yards. There is no time in physical reality, because timing concerns rating change, and change involves difference between realities, not of any given reality.

    This also has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of sensing. Because, by definition, the physically existent state must have occurred prior to it being sensed, otherwise it cannot be sensed (ie seen, heard, felt, etc).

    Re your A B C. Yes, what, from the sensory systems' perspective are 'representations' or 'information' of A B etc, could be in existence concurrently. But unless some bizarre interference occurs in their travel, then they will reach any given sensory system in the order in which they physically occurred, etc. There is a perceptual illusion here if relative movement occurs, and that is explained in paras 28 & 29.

    Paul

    John

    "I don't see that you make significant effort to understand where others might be coming from"

    I wonder how many exchanges I've been involved with. Probably about 300 with Georgina alone. As I said in a post to you in your blog, there is a 'brick wall' (which funnily enough JCN has just made the same metaphor). Now, what am I supposed to do? Just abandon it? Obviously, if any of you can find a substantiated crack/hole/whatever in it, then please articulate that. For my part I will continue to try and explain the points with as much clarity as possible.

    Otherwise, see above posts to JCN and Georgina.

    Paul

    Daniel

    "Most arguments are presented as facts"

    That is probably because once one has established the first two tenets (see my post above to JCN 19/7 14.43), they all follow on as facts, and actually there are not many of them. What the past year of posting has demonstrated is that if one does not close off all the avenues, then....Another way of putting this is, have a look at my post last night in the above thread with Peter (18/7 21.51). This is a potted version of it.

    What I am getting at, in a nutshell, is that how physical reality occurs must provide the base from with physics, as an objective examination of physical reality, proceeds. And at the generic level, which allows the 'wood for the trees' saying to be practised, that demonstrate a number of facts, which then lead to the conclusion that spacetime and the Copenhagen interpretation, are not valid models of physical reality. There is a quirk with Relativity, because the fault may just be in the explanation, rather than the underpinning hypothesis. Hence my 'supplementary posts at 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24.

    "After reading your essay, I realized that that everything you have introduced come is based on one single idea; that reality emerges from perceptible physical interactions. In other words, reality is observer dependent"

    No. Exactly the opposite. Observation, or any form of sensing, is independent of reality. It must be, because it occurs and then we receive a physical input arising from its occurrence. Which we then process. The point is that knowledge of reality is dependent on validated sensory detection. We cannot transcend our own existence. This is science, not belief. Put the other way around, if all sentient organisms were wiped out tonight (preferably after I've been to a West End play tonight!), then physical reality would still exist, it would just be devoid of sentient organisms, until they re-evolved.

    Paul

    Paul,

    I'm not trying to make anything of this, but you present reality as a series of sequential states, with now compelling mechanism, as the only possible explanation for reality. Personally I think people can believe whatever they want to believe but we have circled around this particular point, the lack of mechanism for change from one state to the next, but you can neither explain it, or accept there is a problem there. I see it as a hole/crack, while you don't.

    John

    "Personally I think people can believe whatever they want to believe"

    They certainly have that right, but they lose that right if they are engaged in science. They must then start from a properly validated basis. Otherwise, I can just assert that 'reality is a shoot em up game involving little green guys with 6 heads in a vast control room'. And then say: disprove it.

    As I have stated so many times, what is physically driving this alteration, is a different issue, of which I have no knowledge and do not pretend otherwise. Obviously something is, because physical reality does not re-occur, differently, without a cause. But my lack of knowledge about that, is irrelevant to the "explanation of reality" (ie how it generically occurs). Again, as I have said, so many times. Once one has eliminated all metaphysical considerations (ie 'shoot em up games'), we are left with two fundamental knowns about reality. 1 There is 'something out there', ie independent of the way in which we can know of it, because we receive physical input to sensory systems (ie it comes to us/all organisms). 2 This something involves alteration (ie when we compare these inputs we can identify difference). That means reality is a sequence, which physically exists independently of our ability to know of it. We (and all organisms) are just trapped in a loop (ie sensory detection) in respect as to how we can know of it.

    Paul

    The Argument

    Given the limitation as to what all organisms (which includes humans) can know (either directly or indirectly), which is a function of being trapped in a closed loop of sensory detection (ie sensory detection is what enables knowledge of physical existence, but it cannot be transcended), then we know two facts: 1) physical existence is independent of sensory detection, 2) physical existence involves alteration. This is so, because physically existent phenomena are received by the sensory systems (these being the result of an interaction between other physically existent phenomena), and when these inputs are processed, and hence comparison can be effected, difference is identified.

    Therefore, physical existence is a sequence. And in a sequence, only one state can exist at a time, because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. So physical reality is a sequence of 'presents', a present being that state which was physically existent as at any given point in time. That point (ie unit of timing) being determined by the fastest example of change which occurs in physical reality, because timing is the rating of change.

    There are only physically existent phenomena in existence (occurring). There is no form of 'time' in any given physically existent state, because this concept concerns an aspect of the difference between realities, not an attribute of a reality. Neither is there any space, as in the sense of 'not-physically existent phenomenon'. Space, as in the sense of 'not-object', is physically existent phenomena which are not constituted as per 'object'. The relative size/shape of physically existent phenomena can be conceptualised as a configuration in terms of the 'occupation' of 'spatial points'. A spatial point being the 'spatial footprint' of the smallest physically existent phenomenon.

    Hi Paul,

    Reading your paper I am reminded of certain people who have lots of words, but actually say nothing. I'll give you an example from your essay.

    "Therefore, it is the corollary of the existential conundrum which provides the basis for the scientific analysis of reality."

    Lots of words that I'm not sure say anything. A bunch of years back a computer scientist wrote a program that randomly assembled words together to write a paper. This programmer then submitted his creation to a pier reviewed journal. The journal accepted his paper and printed it. The article was well received by some of the journal readers. A couple of months later he revealed his rouse and this caused a minor uproar in that journal readership. Your sentence is making me wonder if the same thing is happening here? Are you busy defending your computer program? Here is one example of a fake paper (not the one I was talking about) on the web.

    http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/2005/0502sec1.html

    Jim Akerlund

      James

      ""Therefore, it is the corollary of the existential conundrum which provides the basis for the scientific analysis of reality." Lots of words that I'm not sure say anything"

      You may be "not sure", but it certainly does say something. And that is the sentence which follows: "That is, what could be knowable and how that is effected; as opposed to, what might be, but is never knowable anyway (either directly or indirectly)", and indeed, the whole of paras 3-5. This being critical to understanding what can constitute knowledge of reality, given that we are part of it.

      Another way of responding to your comment is to bring your attention to my post above. The argument, as opposed to implications thereof, can be reduced to a few paragraphs. But then, readers, as I have found from responses to posts, would start 'wandering' off, with all sorts of questions/comments, which are not pre-empted, because of the cryptic content. So in presenting the argument one has to anticipate that.

      "Your sentence is making me wonder if the same thing is happening here?"

      No. Because having eliminated metaphysical concerns, that, frankly, should not be necessary, I then state how physical reality occurs, and hence what physics must assume. And, in a nutshell, that is that: there is something out there ('out' being extrinsic to sensory detection systems), and it alters. Reality is sequence. Sequence only occurs 'one at a time', because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. Therefore, there is no 'time' in reality. Timing is the rating of change, ie a feature of the difference between realities, not an attribute of a reality. We know of reality (ie sense) through the receipt of physically existent phenomena (aka light, vibration, etc).

      Paul

      I think the problem is that the essay is a series of propositions that are not developed into coherent arguments. For instance, the idea we are "trapped in a closed loop of sensory detection" would require an full essay to properly established and argued. Without fully developed arguments we are left with is an enumeration of topics, a kind of table of content, but the content is still missing.

      So, in my very personal opinion, it would have been better to have one proposition fully developed than so many ideas as you have crammed in such little space.

      Again, this is only one man's opinion. Take or leave what you feel is appropriate.

        Daniel

        Obviously I appreciate this is your opinion, and I am grateful that you have read it, not many have. However, leaving aside the constraint of character count, which I blew on my first submission, the current amended copy is still only 8 pages. Take for example, the point you pick up on. This is a function of the fact that we are part of reality, but it (and us) is independent of sensory detection. The proof being that we receive physically existent phenomena when we see, hear, etc. Which is what I say. But for a few more words, there is no more to be said. It is an obvious truism, and I would not know what else to say. Have a look at my post above, 21/7 1056, which boils the argument, or proposition, down to 3 paragraphs.

        Paul

        The fundamental physical point

        1 The start point for physics is that there is: a) physical existence independent of sensory detection (eg sight, hearing, etc), and b) alteration thereto. This is proven by the fact that sentient organisms receive physically existent phenomena (eg light, noise, etc, which are themselves the result of an interaction between other physically existent phenomena), and that when these inputs are subsequently processed and can be compared, difference is identified.

        2 Whatever comprises physical existence, which may involve more than one type, and something not yet known, it must have physicality. That is, whether it be that which is deemed to exist, or that which is deemed to cause alteration thereto, there must always be corresponding physically existent phenomena. Nothing (entity or process) can be deemed to be physical, or have a physical effect, unless that is so.

        3 Any given physically existent phenomenon cannot be in more than one physically existent state at a time, otherwise, by definition, it is not a physically existent phenomenon, it is more than one. Therefore, what is physically existent (a reality) is that state which is physically existent as at any given point in time (as in timing). A point (unit) in time being the fastest rate of change in the entirety of reality, because timing is the rating of change. And the requirement is to determine that physically existent state, in any given sequence, where no form of change is occurring, ie to differentiate one from another.

        4 So reality is a sequence. There is no state which is commonly referred to as the future, because that does not exist. Hence any concept which involves the notion of change to it, or that it can have some physical impact, is incorrect, because there is nothing in existence to affect, or be able to have an effect. Neither does what is known as the past exist. Representations of it, from the perspective of the sensory systems, can exist as physically existent phenomena (eg light), but these too have a sequence. It is just that one of their features is that their physical state, from the perspective of the sensory systems, remains unchanged (or nearly so). All that exists is that which can be differentiated at any given point in time, which is commonly known as the present.

        5 Notions such as oscillation, reaction, etc, are ontologically incorrect. Even at a higher level of conceptualisation, reality is in no sense occurring 'backwards'. This just involves the apparent repetition of a previously existent state, though in terms of physicality, it is probably impossible for an identical entire configuration of any given state to re-occur. For example, leaving aside the actual elementary constitution, a sequence could be represented as ABCCDBEFGGGAB....What is happening is that, at the level of differentiation being applied, A & B are re-occurring as the sequence progresses, and C & G do not change in that duration differential, G taking longer than C to do so.

        6 The sequence of reality, whether considered as an entirety, or as any given physically existent component thereof, can only occur in 'one direction' because only what is known as the present is in existence. Furthermore, by definition, the actual physical state of any given present, must be a function of the previous one, because influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance, neither can a non-existent state have influence.

        7 Similarly, the explanation as to how and why that different state occurred, must ultimately be a function of the lowest level of that which constitutes the previous state. In any given circumstance, cause must ultimately be traceable to, and be a function of, the fundamental components of the circumstance which caused it. Also, any given physically existent state, must be definite, otherwise it could not occur. To physically exist inherently involves definiteness, and discreteness. Continuousness involves no change whatsoever to any given physically existent state.

        8 It is probably always going to be impossible for humans to identify the precise physical constitution of a discrete physically existent state, especially if it involves any degree of complexity. Similarly with respect to differentiating the precise physical interrelationship of cause in any given circumstance which involves some degree of complexity. However, this is a 'failure' in human capability, and the issue should not be attributed to innate characteristics in reality.